Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:etyl:tut. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:etyl:tut, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:etyl:tut in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:etyl:tut you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:etyl:tut will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:etyl:tut, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Because ISO is not a neutral authority - it is itself involved in creating arbitrary language families with no linguistic evidence behind them, therefore it coded language families it devised itself, and left out many other, clearly valid language families. {{etyl:ccn}} is another one of these that should probably go. -- Prince Kassad21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what ISO 639-5's exact criteria are, but obviously some of its codes, such as art ("Artificial languages") and crp ("Creoles and pidgins"), do not correspond to real language families. It seems possible that ISO 639-5's inclusion of tut ("Altaic languages") is intended as an endorsement of the Altaic language hypothesis, but unless someone has a copy of the standard or can otherwise confirm that that's how it's intended, there's no reason to assume that it is. (For example, it could alternatively be meant simply as an available option, to be used by people who do put store in that hypothesis, without prejudice against those who do not.) —RuakhTALK22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
] Look at the inter-family relationship (second-to-last column). Note how it sorts Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolic under Altaic (but interestingly not Japonic). -- Prince Kassad08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Right, but it also sorts xnd ("Na-Dene languages") under nai ("North American Indian languages"). Obviously that's not intended as a claim of genetic relationship. —RuakhTALK14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Among people who do believe in the Altaic hypothesis, the most conservative/mainstream variant of the hypothesis is that Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are Altaic, but Korean and Japanese/Japonic are not. At any rate, I'm going to say keep because the template is in use at 骆驼 and 駱駝. Maybe someone who knows more about Chinese etymology than I do can say which branch of Altaic this word is possibly borrowed from. —Angr16:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
